KNOWLTON TWP. — An appeal by a land owner has been dismissed because all the issues of the original lawsuit have not been resolved.

Claudia Casser sued Knowlton Township, the mayor, the Township Committee as well as the Planning Board and members of those bodies individually and in their official capacities.

Among other things, Casser claimed that evidence to support her case was intentionally concealed by the defendants. All issues but that claim were dismissed by April 2013. Casser then appealed the dismissals.

On May 12, The Appellate Court issued its ruling that it could not review the matter until all issues had been finalized in the trial court.

According to the court opinion:

In 1985, Casser purchased nearly 100 acres of farmland in Knowlton Township. At that time, zoning allowed a density of one house per 3 acres. Casser’s “intention was to subdivide and sell half the acreage.”

In 1991, the zoning was changed to 5-acre minimum lots sizes in most of the township. In 2003, the township adopted an ordinance upping the minimum lots size to 10 acres. Casser’s farm was included in the 2003 ordinance. That ordinance also required that when tracts of 50 acres or more were subdivided, the owner had to deed-restrict half of the acreage to open space.

Casser did not challenge either of these ordinances at the time they were adopted.

In 2007, Casser submitted an application to subdivide all of the property. She attacked the legality of the ordinance requiring her to set aside half of the land for open space. The Planning Board ultimately approved her subdivision plan, subject to the requirement that she “set aside a portion of her land to open space.” Casser requested a variance but was denied.

In January 2010, Casser turned to the Township Committee and argued that the Planning Board did not have the power to require her to set aside any of her land to open space as a condition of approving her minor subdivision, and that she was therefore entitled to compensation.

On March 8, 2010, Casser filed a 12-count complaint in Warren County charging that the township had applied the ordinance in an “irrational and discriminatory” manner; violated her civil rights and caused her to “suffer emotional injury from this discrimination against her.”

In the 12th count of the complaint, Casser asserted the township had engaged in civil racketeering. Casser alleged “that the Planning Board did not require 11 other applicants who sought minor subdivisions of over 50 acres to set aside a portion of their land to open space.”

Casser argued that when she asked to review the applications submitted by those applicants, they were not provided to her and that she was instead given information concerning applicants “who had been held to the same standard as plaintiff. Casser alleged that such conduct on the part of the township amounted to fraudulent concealment” of evidence which caused her to sustain “substantial damages.”

Several counts of the complaint — but not count 12 — were dismissed by a Warren County judge before the case was transferred to Somerset County. The Somerset County judge then dismissed the remaining counts, except for count 12, which the judge mistakenly thought had already been dismissed.

“Although she raises a number of substantive arguments concerning these orders, we are unable to review the matter on the merits at this juncture of the case,” the appellate judges wrote, noting that all matters have to have final rulings before they can be appealed.

“Here, it is clear that the fraudulent concealment of evidence claim set forth in count twelve of the complaint was never resolved by either of the two judges who handled this case.

“The Warren County judge's August 31, 2011 order specifically preserved the fraudulent concealment claim. The Somerset County judge's order of April 12, 2013 did not deal with count twelve of the complaint, but indicated that this count had previously been dismissed by the Warren County judge,” they wrote.

The appellate court remanded the matter back to the lower court to resolve the fraudulent concealment claim.